ABSTRACT
The benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients supported by a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is unknown. There are currently no guidelines regarding the continuation, discontinuation or pacemaker (PM) settings post-LVAD implant. The aim of the study was to assess the hemodynamic benefit of biventricular (BiV) pacing in LVAD patients. We studied 22 patients supported by LVADs (age 62 ± 9, 21 males) who had received a BiV PM before LVAD implant. A total of 123 complete sets of hemodynamics were obtained during BiV pacing (nâ¯=â¯54), right ventricular (RV) pacing (nâ¯=â¯54), and intrinsic rhythm (nâ¯=â¯15). There were no significant differences in right atrial (RA) pressure, mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPA), PCWP, cardiac output, PA saturation (PASat) and right ventricular stroke work index between BiV and RV pacing. Hemodynamics obtained during intrinsic rhythm in 15 non-PM-dependent patients were not significantly different compared with those obtained during BiV or RV pacing. Furthermore, hemodynamics were similar at different heart rates ranging 50 to 110 beats/min. Right ventricular stroke work index was significantly lower at the highest heart rate compared with baseline and lowest heart rates suggesting decreased RV performance at higher heart rate. In conclusion, BiV pacing does not have any acute hemodynamic benefit compared with RV pacing or intrinsic rhythm in LVAD patients. A lower heart rate may confer better RV performance.
Subject(s)
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy , Heart-Assist Devices , Ventricular Dysfunction, Left/physiopathology , Ventricular Dysfunction, Left/therapy , Adult , Aged , Cardiac Catheterization , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Heart Rate/physiology , Hemodynamics/physiology , Humans , Iowa , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) as treatment for advanced heart failure (HF) has grown exponentially over the past 15 years. The continuous flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) has become the most used form of MCS in advanced HF, especially since approval of use as destination therapy (DT) and with the lack of organ availability. Long-term survival has improved and diligent outpatient management is thus particularly critical to achieve optimal outcomes. This review will discuss outpatient management strategies for patients with HF and a left ventricular assist device (LVAD).
ABSTRACT
Ventricular assist devices (VADs) are a surgical treatment for heart failure. These devices may be implanted as a bridge to transplant or as destination therapy. After surgical recovery and education regarding device care, patients are discharged home. Meticulous care of the driveline must be taken to prevent infection and trauma of the site throughout the perioperative event and for the duration of support. Currently a standardized protocol for care of the driveline and exit site does not exist. VAD coordinators from across the country discussed the variability in care at different centers in the United States through a series of conference calls. A survey consisting of 16 questions was developed. The survey included questions on preoperative antibiotic recommendations, driveline placement and exit site suturing, frequency of dressing changes, and showering practices. VAD coordinators shared center-specific dressing protocols and any driveline success stories. This survey was sent to 73 centers; 38 centers (52%) responded. The purpose of the survey was to define current practice in order to move toward a standard of practice or protocol based on expert opinion for VAD driveline care and to assess the need for future studies.
